[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 184 (Friday, September 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55447-55450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8101]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Upward Bound Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priority.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education announces 
a priority under the Upward Bound (UB) Program. This priority will help 
focus Federal resources on students most in need of academic assistance 
and increase the effectiveness of the UB Program.

Dates: This priority is effective October 23, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geraldine Smith or Gaby Watts, U.S. 
Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 7020, Washington, DC 
20006-8512, or via Internet: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a notice of proposed priority 
(NPP) in the Federal Register on July 3, 2006 (71 FR 37926). We 
discussed our proposals for this program in the NPP on pages 37926-
37928.
    This notice of final priority contains three changes from the NPP. 
We fully explain these changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes 
section that follows.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the NPP, 110 parties submitted 
comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the 
priority follows. We group major issues according to subject. 
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and 
suggested changes we are not authorized to make under the applicable 
statutory authority.

Authority to Implement a Priority in the UB Program

    Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that the 
Department had overstepped its legislative and regulatory authority in 
proposing this priority. They believe the Department does not have the 
legal authority to impose a priority not specified in statute and that 
the proposed priority substitutes an administrative priority for a 
congressional priority, and circumvents legislation and regulations 
regarding selection of program participants based on grade level and 
need for academic support.
    Discussion: The Secretary does not agree with these commenters. The 
Department's authority to establish priorities for the TRIO programs 
and other discretionary grant programs is well established. The 
Department's regulations clearly reflect this authority in 34 CFR 74.11 
and 75.105. Section 402C of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (HEA), which authorizes the UB program, does not prohibit or 
limit the Secretary's authority to establish funding priorities to 
achieve the UB program's purposes. In fact, the Secretary has 
previously established priorities for the UB Program without challenge 
or questions. See the notice of proposed priority, 68 FR 37469 (June 
24, 2003) and the notice of final priority, 68 FR 50958 (August 22, 
2003), and the notice of proposed priority, 65 FR 35238 (June 1, 2000) 
and the notice of final priority, 65 FR 45698 (July 24, 2000).
    The priority proposed by the Secretary is consistent with the 
requirements for funding included in section 402C(d)(3) and (4) of the 
HEA. Those provisions stipulate that each UB program participant must 
have a need for academic support and must have completed eight years of 
elementary school education.Change: None.

Selection of First-Time UB Participants From Otherwise Eligible 
Students Who Have Completed the 8th Grade But Not the 9th Grade in 
Secondary School

    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concerns about the proposal 
to limit the selection of new UB participants to students who have 
completed the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in secondary school. 
These commenters stated that the focus on these students would not 
contribute to the effectiveness of the UB Program because of the lack 
of maturity of younger students; higher drop-out rates among younger 
students; the high mobility rates of UB participants; and increased 
costs for those projects that currently recruit from high schools that 
begin with the 10th grade. In addition, some commenters argued that 
selecting students in the 10th grade allows students to participate in 
the UB program for 36 months and those students have similar success 
rates as students selected during the 9th grade.
    Discussion: A 2004 report of a study conducted for the Department 
titled, The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the Third 
Follow-Up Data Collection (the Study) concluded that, for students who 
participated in the UB program for less than two years, an additional 
year of participation in the program could raise the postsecondary 
enrollment rate by as much as nine percentage points. Among UB program 
participants who did not complete the program, the Study found that UB

[[Page 55448]]

program completion could raise postsecondary enrollment by as much as 
17 percentage points.
    We agree with the commenters that students entering the UB program 
in the 10th grade would have an opportunity to receive UB services for 
36 months. We believe that for students without a high academic risk 
for failure, participation in the UB program for 36 months would 
increase the postsecondary enrollment rate especially among students 
who remain in the program until high school graduation. Students that 
have a high academic risk for failure, on the other hand, require more 
intensive services and will likely receive a greater benefit by having 
access to the UB program for four complete years. In addition, a recent 
evaluation of high school reform models by MDRC (a nonprofit, 
nonpartisan social policy research organization) suggests that focusing 
on the critical transition year of ninth grade can make a real 
difference for students who enter high school with poor academic 
skills. Quint, Janet, Meeting Five Critical Challenges of High School 
Reform (May, 2006). Accordingly, we will allow UB projects to select 
from otherwise eligible students, those students who have completed the 
8th grade but not the 10th grade in secondary school, except for the 30 
percent of new students who must have a high academic risk for failure. 
However, expanding the selection of UB program participants to include 
those students who have completed the 9th grade but not the 10th grade, 
creates an opportunity for students not selected to participate in the 
UB program prior to the students' completion of the 9th grade to 
reapply for UB program participation the following year. To avoid 
having the same students included as participants in both the control 
group and the UB program, we have made a change to prohibit such dual 
participation.
    Change: We have modified the priority to allow UB projects to 
select otherwise eligible students who have completed the 8th grade but 
not the 10th grade in secondary school, except for the 30 percent of 
new students who must have a high academic risk for failure. The 30 
percent of new students who must have a high academic risk for failure 
must be selected from otherwise eligible students who have completed 
the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in secondary school. The remaining 
new students may or may not have a high academic risk for failure and 
may or may not have completed the 9th grade in secondary school.
    We have also modified the priority to provide that students 
selected to participate in the control group may not be subsequently 
selected to participate in the UB program.
    Comment: Some commenters argued that it would be counter-productive 
and unfair to students if UB projects were not allowed to accept 
transfer students who participated in the UB program at a previous 
school because the students have completed the 9th grade.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters.
    Change: We have changed the priority to provide that a student who 
has previously participated in a regular UB project may be selected to 
continue to participate in the same or different UB project 
notwithstanding the student's grade level.

Select Not Less Than 30 Percent of New Participants From Students Who 
Have a High Academic Risk for Failure

    Comment: Some commenters applauded the proposal to focus UB 
services on students with the most need. Others objected to what they 
view as changes that will turn the UB program into a dropout prevention 
program instead of a college prep program. Some commenters argued that 
serving students with a high academic risk for failure unfairly 
penalizes students who are doing well in school, while others 
recommended that we expand the definition of high academic risk for 
failure to include social risks, such as coming from a single parent 
home or exposure to gang pressure.
    Discussion: We do not agree that the priority will penalize 
students for doing well in school. Students doing well academically do 
not generally need the intensive academic services provided by the UB 
program and those services are not intended to be a reward for good 
academic performance. In fact, section 402C(d)(3) of the HEA requires 
that a determination be made that the student ``has a need for academic 
support in order to pursue successfully a program of education beyond 
secondary school,'' (emphasis added) to provide services to that 
student.
    We recognize that many students who are doing well in their 
academic subjects may have additional needs related to social and 
environmental issues. Those non-academic needs alone, however, are not 
a basis on which students may be selected to participate in UB. The 
TRIO Talent Search Program is designed to provide assistance to 
students who have the potential for success at the postsecondary level, 
but who need encouragement and other support to pursue a postsecondary 
education.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern that the targeting of Upward 
Bound on students with high academic risk for failure as indicated by 
their grade point average is not supported by the previous national 
evaluation of Upward Bound.
    Discussion: We agree that recent evaluation findings suggest that 
grade point average is an imperfect indicator of educational 
expectations and of a student's likelihood to benefit from the UB 
program. Nonetheless, we believe that a low grade point average 
certainly is one of several possible indicators of a student's need for 
academic support in order to pursue successfully a program of 
postsecondary study. Recent research from the national UB program 
evaluation and other sources (including The Condition of Education 
2001, Indicator 24, which may be reviewed at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001072_3.pdf) suggests another possible indicator of a 
first-generation student's need for academic support. Specifically, 
there is evidence that failure to take algebra (or higher) in grade 
eight or nine may indicate a student's potential to benefit from UB or 
similar programs.
    Change: We have modified the priority to allow projects to count a 
student as at high academic risk for failure if the student has not 
completed pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry by the end of grade eight, 
and (in cases in which the student is recruited early during grade 
nine) if the student is not taking algebra or geometry in grade nine. 
This criterion further grounds the priority in recent research and 
gives UB projects a fourth option for identifying the 30 percent of new 
students who must be at high academic risk for failure.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed priority would 
remove the individual programs' flexibility and create a one-size-fits-
all approach that would damage UB's mission of helping needy students 
gain admission to college.
    Discussion: Within the parameters of the priority, programs will 
continue to have flexibility in determining which students are served. 
We believe that the priority will ensure that the students who receive 
UB program services are those who most need those services. Under the 
priority not less than 30 percent of the new participants must be 
selected from those students who have a high academic risk for failure. 
The remaining students will continue to be selected from among all 
eligible

[[Page 55449]]

students based upon the discretion of the UB project staff.
    Change: None.

Proposed Evaluation

    Comment: One commenter supported including in the priority a 
requirement to participate in the Department's evaluation of the UB 
program. The remaining commenters opposed the proposed evaluation. The 
objections to the proposed priority relating to the evaluation include 
the following: (a) Several of the commenters stated that they believe 
many colleges and universities would have reservations about approving 
``human subjects standards'' in their internal review boards, if the 
review does not demonstrate that members of the control group are 
``done no harm;'' (b) other commenters stated that the control group 
would not be a true control group, as a true control group would not be 
referred to other support services and any UB project that does not 
refer needy students to another student support program or who would 
try to insulate them from other available academic resources would be 
unethical and inhuman; and (c) many commenters expressed concern about 
what they thought would be the undue burden and cost if UB projects 
were required to recruit twice the number of eligible students to be 
served, work with twice the number of parents, and were required to 
encourage students to fill out the forms when the students know that 
they stand only a 50 percent chance of getting selected.
    Discussion: We do not share the commenters' concerns about the 
burdens associated with the evaluation. All plans for data collection 
and random assignment will be submitted to the evaluator's 
Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the U.S. Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for their approval to minimize the burden to students and 
protect the rights of all human subjects. Because the evaluation will 
be conducted by the Institute of Education Sciences and its contractor, 
institutions of higher education will not be required to obtain 
internal review board approval. The UB program only has funds to serve 
a small percent of the eligible low-income, first-generation students 
in the U.S., so some eligible and potentially interested students will 
not be served regardless of whether a random assignment evaluation 
occurs.
    We did not intend to suggest that control group students would be 
prohibited from receiving services from other programs. For ethical, 
legal, and practical reasons, control group students will be free to 
receive supplemental educational services from numerous other student 
support programs. The evaluator will carefully measure the variety and 
intensity of services received by all students in the evaluation in 
order to interpret the impact of the UB program services, as opposed to 
the gross impact of other college preparation programs in which 
students may be involved. The question the evaluation will address is: 
Does Upward Bound have a benefit, above and beyond the benefit of the 
other services already available to eligible students applying to the 
program?
    We agree with the commenters that there will likely be some 
additional burden on grantee staff, particularly during the first year 
of the evaluation. Some grantees will have to increase their recruiting 
efforts to meet not only any evaluation requirements, but also the new 
requirements to focus the program on students who have a high academic 
risk for failure. On the other hand, casting a wider net for applicants 
also has significant advantages. It will likely raise the profile of 
the UB program among eligible students. The extra recruiting required 
for the evaluation is a one-time effort and seems unlikely to have a 
lingering effect on program activities. The burden of the new data 
collection will be borne primarily by the evaluator, not grantees, and 
the evaluator will work with grantees to minimize any burdens as 
required for IRB and OMB approval of data collection plans. Any 
outreach or publicity to obtain enough applications to create the 
control group will build on grantees' current admission procedures or 
those proposed as a condition of receiving 2007 grants. As required for 
IRB and OMB approval of data collection plans, the evaluator will seek 
informed and written consent from a parent or guardian before a student 
is included in the evaluation.
    Change: None.


    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register. A notice soliciting applications 
for new awards for the UB program for fiscal year 2007 is published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

Priority

Absolute Priority: Upward Bound Program Participant Selection and 
Evaluation

    This priority supports regular Upward Bound Program projects that--
    1. Select first-time participants from otherwise eligible students 
who have completed the 8th grade but not the 10th grade in secondary 
school, except a student who has previously participated in a regular 
Upward Bound project may be selected notwithstanding the student's 
grade level;
    2. Select not less than 30 percent of all first-time participants 
from students who have completed the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in 
secondary school and who have a ``high academic risk for failure.''
    ``High academic risk for failure'' refers to otherwise eligible 
students who--
    a. Have not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments 
in reading/language arts for grade eight;
    b. Have not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments 
in math for grade eight;
    c. Have a grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for 
the most recent school year for which grade point averages are 
available; or
    d. Have not completed pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry by the end 
of grade eight, and (in cases in which students are recruited early 
during grade nine) are not taking algebra or geometry in grade nine.
    To meet this priority, an applicant also must agree to conduct its 
Upward Bound project in a manner consistent with the evaluation that 
the Department plans to conduct for the Upward Bound Program. An 
applicant also must agree, if selected to participate in the 
evaluation, to--
    1. Recruit at least twice as many eligible new students in project 
year 2007-2008 as the grantee plans to serve in its project. Of that 
larger pool of eligible new students, not less than 30 percent must 
have completed the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in secondary school 
and meet the definition of ``high academic risk for failure;''
    2. Refrain from admitting new students into the Upward Bound 
project for project year 2007-2008 until the evaluator has completed 
its data collection and random assignment for those students;
    3. Agree that eligible new students will be assigned randomly by 
the evaluator either to participate in Upward Bound or to serve as part 
of a control group (not in Upward Bound); and
    4. Agree that a student assigned to serve as part of a control 
group will not be subsequently selected to participate in Upward Bound.
    This priority does not apply to the Veterans Upward Bound projects 
and Upward Bound Math/Science projects.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of final priority has been reviewed in accordance with 
Executive

[[Page 55450]]

Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the 
potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
    The potential costs associated with the notice of final priority 
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have 
determined are necessary for administering this program effectively and 
efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of this notice of final priority, we have determined 
that the benefits of the proposed priority justify the costs.
    We have also determined that this action does not unduly interfere 
with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their 
governmental functions.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive 
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened 
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State 
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 645.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this 
Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable 
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.


    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.047A Upward Bound 
Program)

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13.

    Dated: September 19, 2006.
James F. Manning,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 06-8101 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P